Why this Conservative supports Gay Marriage

[lurchingright]

Yes, I am a conservative, yes, I support gay marriage and no, I am not joking.

I know that this does not jibe with what many of you believe to be “True Conservatism”, but I respectfully disagree.

Before I discuss this further, I would like to point out that I am not discussing this as a spiritual or religious issue, rather as a political one.

When you look at the Left versus the Right, liberals versus conservatives, Democrats versus Republicans or however way you want to view the political spectrum there is one fundamental difference between both sides.

That difference?

More government versus less government. Liberals want more, Conservative want less.

It’s really as simple as that. Nearly every position that liberals and conservatives take stem from that very difference.

So, being a conservative, how else could I view a government’s ban of an entire group of people’s ability to participate in an activity that they wish to enjoy as anything other than more government control over our lives?

As a result of this belief, I recognize the support of gay marriage as being a conservative approach to this issue, rather than a liberal approach.

You may snicker, shake your head and/or disagree with me all you want, but, based on that rationale, I am taking a consistent and objective stance on this issue.

Now as we all know, complete objectivity is difficult to achieve when discussing politics. It’s even more difficult to do so when discussing matters of the heart.

This issue is both, so let’s throw out objectivity for a moment and just speak about this, actually speak about it without labels like Republicans or liberals, but merely as people.

I want you to think of your greatest source of love right now. It could be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, child, grandparent, whatever it is to you, I want you to think about them.

Please take a moment and think about how much that person means to you and how much joy and happiness they’ve brought you.

Now I want you to think how difficult it would be if a group of people made a law prohibiting you from loving that person in the manner in which you want.

Think about how that would make you feel. That a group of people that you have never met said that you and the person you love most in this life cannot be together because your love is “different”, “unnatural” or even a “sin”.

I cannot think of many things in this life that would be worse than that.

Now, I have a question to those that support a ban on gay marriage and I want you to, please, be honest when you answer it to yourself, why do you care?

Why do you care if loving homosexuals marry each other? What difference does it make on your life? Does it really have any impact whatsoever?

If not, why do you support this stance?

I’ve had this discussion with numerous people and I’ve heard all of the same responses…

“It’s not natural”

Well, the homosexuals that I have met and know that were born gay would respectfully disagree with that.

“Well, they can’t conceive children”

So what? Since when is bearing children a necessity in marriage. By that rationale, all of the heterosexual couples that cannot or wish not to have children should have their marriages voided as well.

“It’s an assault on traditional marriage”

How? How is it possibly undermining the traditional form of marriage between a man and a woman?

Listen, I don’t like how the Leftist gay community approaches resistance to their cause with pornographic and disrespectful demonstrations, but I recognize that that is a vocal minority of the group.

I believe that most homosexuals are just normal people that want to live their lives in a normal fashion with the man or woman they love, just like the rest of us.

It is because of this and my understanding of the differences between more and less government that I support gay marriage.

lurchingright.blogspot.com/

[ness123x]

Yes , I totally understand your position and I have to agree that as a conservative we should impose less on the people.

And I apologize if what I'm going to say now is directly related to religion and spiritualism because said not to but here is my idea about this. We can't really say that being Gay or Homosexual is a "bad" choice because some of the people who are gay , were born to be that way and there were studies about this that proved it (at least from the part of the male). However , there is a difference in wanting to marry in documents and have the rights to become a couple and marrying in the name of God at the church. Marriage is a ceremony for the union of a woman and a man and has always been that way. So it's more like a problem with the tradition and religious rules of the church than any sore of political issue upon that. I mean, you could do some other sort of ceremony , call it something else , not a marriage , sign the papers and thats it. No big of a deal.

Now not only that but think with me for a second. Suppose that man has actually some of those genes that leads to a homosexual taste and he decides to be with that other man with the same gene situation.

Now , why would he want to have kids or adopt them and take the risk (a big one) to have a homosexual generation? I say a big risk because kids , specially when they are very young they learn fast, they imitate everything the parents does and no doubts the child is going to be confused and there you spoil the child's life for ever and its not even his problem I mean he doesn't have the genes. Not only that but I think kids have to learn from both Man and Woman and from that I mean parents. This generation specially , is filled with kids without a father or without a mother or sometimes even both and its really fucked up.

Now I know I have been here in U.S only for 2 years and I'm only 18 years old and maybe I don't have full understanding about what 's actually going on but this is my stand.

[pro4art]

Feb 22, 2009 12:45:11 GMT -5 ness123x said:

However , there is a difference in wanting to marry in documents and have the rights to become a couple and marrying in the name of God at the church. Marriage is a ceremony for the union of a woman and a man and has always been that way. ------- I mean, you could do some other sort of ceremony , so call it something else , not a marriage , sign the papers and thats it. No big of a deal.

======================
The Gay community will always meet resistance form a large part of the USA public, by the use of the word "Marriage".
They attempt to rewrite World History by wanting to change the definition of Marriage. They will never succede in doing so, only meeting constant resistance to their cause.

[midcan5]

Whenever I read of people concerned that gays should be allowed to marry I wonder what world they live in? Do they watch Povich, Springer, Oprah, or any of the other reality TV shows and not wonder why heterosexuals are allowed to marry? Heterosexual marriage sure as heck inflicts a great deal more pain and suffering on their spouses and children than gays do. Consider too the recent financial meltdown. It probably will hurt more families and children than any act of legislation that gives gays the same rights as the other wackos who marry. And don't get me wrong I have been married forever and we have fine children also married. But our priorities are skewed when we focus on this issue and do not consider the real pain in the world.


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

[TNRighty]

Lurchingright,

I agree in principle with about 90% of what you said, but for the sake of nuance I'm going to disagree slightly...

I'm going to take the more libertarian approach. I don't support gay marriage. Marriage is a religious/biblical institution, not a government institution. The institution of marriage was clearly defined long before the formation of our government. On that basis we should recognize and respect the separation of government doctrine from religious doctrine. Marriage should not be open to a government interpretation. And thus it is not the role of government to define, recognize, or confer benefits to one couple over another based on the nature of the relationship between consenting adults.

When it comes to government policy, I think we can definitively recongnize the religious institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman while at the same time respecting the civil rights of gays to live with and do whatever they want with whoever they want.

How do we do that? Simple. Get government out of the marriage business, especially as it pertains to taxation. Like I said, government should not have the ability to offer tax benefits (married filing jointly) to one couple over another based on what the government decides the proper definition of marriage is.

Our abomination of a tax code has morphed from a revenue collecting vehicle to a vehicle of social engineering. If you've ever filed a tax return you know that our tax code is based as much on your personal life as it is on how much money you make. Are you married, are you single, do you have kids, and if so how many, do you own a home, what did you spend your money on, etc, etc, etc.

Personally, I don't blame gays for making some of the arguments they're making especially when it comes to demanding equal treatment under our tax laws.

We could solve this marriage crisis very easily by just getting government out of our personal lives altogether.

[TNRighty]

Oh by the way...

Medican, I love Adam Smith. He is one of the best classical economic minds of all time. And I agree 100% with his quote you posted, "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

That's very true. The only question is, who decides what their proportional ability is? I would argue that, having studied Adam Smith's writings, that it is up to the individual to determine his ability to pay, not the government.

It is for that reason that I support a consumption tax over an income tax. You should read up on the Fair Tax...you might like it.

[midcan5]

While marriage is a religious institution as TNR writes, the implications of marriage rights far exceed religious sanctions. How many really live strictly according to religious law anyway? Very few except for those we generally deem fanatics. But if a couple live together for years they should be accorded the same rights as married people. Not everyone marries to procreate the race and many gay relationships include children. The problem with removing government from marriage is once you do that, it is a free for all. Government is the only entity entitled to make law and create a situation where rights are honored and even enforce a situation that brings wrong to one party. So religion can say what it wants, and Gawd can judge as she wants, but allow ALL people the same rights under the law and under the constitution.

TNR, glad to see you noticed the conservative bastion of free market prosperity, but like all bastions his ideas are more complex and most pick only what suits their moral universe. Consumption taxation would open the flood gates of corruption. Even today a cash purchase can be a great deal lower than a credit card or check purchase. People just ain't saints and cheating and the creation of a black market would be the only thing a consumption tax created. Do this sometime, next time you get an estimate ask the cash price? Or check the books on that business that deals in cash only.


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

[MO]

My reasons for NOT supporting gay marriage or "civil unions" are not religious, but could be considered traditional but mostly, financial.

No one is telling anyone who they can love. I loved my husband before I married him. If you think a relationship based on who you love to bend over a sofa should be state or federally recognized, than you ARE calling for more government involvement, not less.

The historical purpose of marriage, and the reasons for state recognition of it, were to combine names and the resources of both families for the benefit of the offspring.

Even today, women who marry and have children are way behind in their careers, or they let them go for years, and in most cases, they never catch up. Civil laws about marriage were put into place to protect women and their children from financial abandonment. While it's true that one member of a gay or lesbian couple can have a bio child with someone else, or adopt, the same could be said if I decided to raise a child with my mother, or three platonic roommates, yet no one is advocating marriage in those instances.

Private compaines already have a CHOICE of whether to extend benefits to same sex partners, and many do, including the company my husband works for. Having the gov. force them to, by legal same sex marriage, is more gov intrusion, not less.

I know a lady who is the widow of a state employee, and it's a damn sweet deal in the way of pension and benefits. But, she needs it to live, because she spent her life raising several children. The family who is making the sacrifices to raise the next generation of tax payers shouldn't have to struggle to pay extra taxes to provide for the "husband" of a male state employee, when there are no circumstances inherent in that relationship that would keep him from having his own career, benefits, and retirement.

The idea that society should abandon marriage completely is also an anti-family, screw the women and children principle. Sorry, but I don't consider a simple head count of the family and a personal deduction for everyone living in the household, employed or not, to be "social engineering." It's no wonder we're not replacing ourselves, and have to take in so many imports.

[midcan5]

Mo, strangely I agree with most of what you wrote above, but I would extend the right to marriage to gays for the same financial reasons. They too deserve a share in the resources of both partners. I know several gays who have been together over twenty years, that they don't have financial equality under the law is wrong. But like all wrongs eventually society changes. Humans are just slow to knowledge.

[USA50]

“The idea that society should abandon marriage completely is also an anti-family, screw the women and children principle. Sorry, but I don't consider a simple head count of the family and a personal deduction for everyone living in the household, employed or not, to be "social engineering." It's no wonder we're not replacing ourselves, and have to take in so many imports.”

Who is saying that marriage should be completely abandoned? Same sex marriage expands the family, it is not anti-family. Divorce is anti-family, and that’s the exclusive domain of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals getting married and not having children is anti-family, or those who simply can't have children are anti-family??

All the same sex marriages in the world do not diminish one heterosexual marriage family. Nor do they limit the number of heterosexual families, nor are they in any reasonable way anti-family. Your prejudice surely runs deeper than such euphemisms.

[huanic]

spam removed